Policy redundancy and layout

[Dominick Grift]

On 03/01/2010 06:46 PM, Scott Salley wrote:
> I have a project with multiple daemons (around 6) which share many
> common features (they access the network, create and maintain daemon
> specific files, access random numbers, etc...), though they each deal
> with a different set of tasks (monitoring network resources, providing
> network file sharing services, providing network authentication
> services, etc).
> 
>  
> 
> Is it okay to use the interface file to define a set of common
> properties for these daemons to avoid listing everything out for each
> daemon? If not the interface file, then how should a common set of
> patterns for these daemons be defined?
> 

I usually use attributes for that. For example let us assume you have a
suite of apps to confine.

In that case you could assign an attribute mysuite_domains to each
domain type.

Then you can write the policy that all of the apps in your suite have in
common using the mysuite_domains attirbute instead of the individual types.

You can find some examples in my policy repository:

git://84.245.6.206/selinux-modules.git

And in particular the telepathy.te file.

########################################
#
# Telepathy global personal policy.
#

allow tp_domains self:process { getsched signal };
allow tp_domains self:fifo_file rw_fifo_file_perms;

.. etc, etc ..


> 
> I found listing the rules for each daemon to be bug prone and tedious.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> selinux mailing list
> selinux at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/selinux/attachments/20100301/319e6c4b/attachment.bin